Thursday, February 19, 2009

Which Superstition Is More Ridiculously Risible?

Some of the Christian wallahs that I have the misfortune of living amongst have poked fun and ridicule at a report on ABC to the effect that a group of Indian tribals have married off one year old Sangula Munda to a female dog in eastern India in a bid to prevent his predicted death at the hands of a tiger. Some of the criticisms raised by these Christian supremacists who are, incidentally, high in the ranks of the Anglican clergy, are that these poor people are 'backward', 'superstitious' and/or 'ignorant', despite the fact that the ceremony was held at a Hindu temple and was conducted by a Hindu priest with all the rituals observed at traditional weddings, including a dowry for the canine bride. And this in a week when that Arch-Bozo John Sentamu (see here) claimed that Christains were the embodiment of 'charity and compassion'. Guffaw! Frankly, there is absolutely no qualitative, logical, scientific, or psychological difference between the nonsense believed in by a Hindu priest, the 'group of Indian tribals', or the clergy and flock of the Anglican Communion - or Christians in toto - so the criticism by my so-called Christian neighbours is not only completely misplaced but totally egregious in the extreme.

In short, all religious belief is based on backwardness, superstition, ignorance, and psychological neediness, and none of it has any underpinnings of logic or empiric evidence to substantiate it; it is, by definition, simply based on 'faith' - i.e. the hope that things are as one would like them to be, and not as they really are - the power of self-delusion, and a complete willingness to shun critical analysis of the entirely spurious claims made by religious adherents.

Marrying a child to a dog is no more ridiculous than the Christian claims that a non-existent person called 'Jesus' fed 5000 people with a couple of fish and a few loaves of bread, or that he was born of a virgin, or rose from the dead - to name but some of the nonsense put about in this non-existent person's name.

Neither does it explain why these Christian fascists like to claim that their particular so-called 'god' is any more real than any of the other 4,536 known 'gods' that mankind has invented over the millennia.

For Christians the answer to that is simple: all the other 4535 'gods' are imaginary, as only theirs is the 'real deal'.

Oh dear, I'm going to have an apoplexy laughing myself sick at that one.

5 comments:

papalazarou said...

and I suppose that the Catholic ritual of exorcism is a noble and intellectually sound practice?

The Merchant of Menace said...

Oh, Aye. It is based on sound scientific principles, don't you know. Why, transubstantiation is a proven technique in what the churches like to dismiss otherwise as 'magick', and which science dismisses as 'spurious nonsense'.

papalazarou said...

doesn't the Catholic dogma on transubstantiation automatically mean that the church advocates cannibalism?

The Merchant of Menace said...

No more than it advocates paedophilia, but it is nevertheless widespread amongst its adherents. And as long as you say 5000 'Hail Marys' it's OK!

papalazarou said...

but then logic and rationality is not a strong point of religions - much less is evidence based decision making